JUDGMENT Nitin Jamdar, C.J. This Public Interest Litigation is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to stop the functioning of the school run by Respondent No. 6. 2. The Petitioner alleges that adjacent to his house, Respondent No. 6 is running a Lower Primary English Medium School illegally without permissions, in violation of the statutory provisions. He also alleges that there is no sanction or permission from the educational authorities for running the school and that huge amount of fees are being collected by Respondent No. 6 from the students. 3. We have heard Mr. Ramesan V.N., the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. V. Tekchand, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Mr. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 5, and Mr. Mudassar Ahamed, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 6. 4. When the petition came up on board on 28 January 2025, notice was issued to the Respondents. Pursuant to the notice, an affidavit was filed by Respondent No. 3 – Deputy Director of Education, Kannur, dated 5 March 2025, in which it was stated as follows: “(i) It is submitted that based on the complaint submitted by the Petitioner to the Chief Minister’s Grievances Redressal Cell with regard to the functioning of the Crescent English School, Thayineri, the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur had visited the said school and reported that none of the document has been submitted at the time of visit as regards the permission of school and also not obtained fitness certificate. On the strength of the report submitted by the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur, the District Educational Officer, Taliparamba recommended to initiate actions against the school. On the basis of the same, it is submitted that the school has been functioning without having necessary recognition and fitness certificate. Hence, this office recommended to the Director of General Education to initiate action against the above school. The Director of General Education vide letter dated 13 May 2024 submitted a letter to the Principal Secretary, General Education (N) Department to close down the school. (ii) It is submitted that an enquiry report was submitted by the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur to the District Education Officer, Taliparamba. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Petitioner, the authority had visited the institution on 29 January 2024. Crescent English Medium School is functioning under the Thayineri Muslim Educational Society. (ii) It is submitted that an enquiry report was submitted by the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur to the District Education Officer, Taliparamba. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Petitioner, the authority had visited the institution on 29 January 2024. Crescent English Medium School is functioning under the Thayineri Muslim Educational Society. It is learnt that this institution is functioning since 1998. No records regarding its recognition or approvals have been furnished. This institution is situated near to Thayineri SABTM school. After examining the school and attendance register by the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur, it is convinced that 235 students are studying in this school in LKG, UKG, 1, 2, 3 and 4 classes. Since the Crescent English Medium School is functioning without obtaining Government recognition and fitness certificate, a letter had been submitted before the Director of General Education, Kerala for initiating further action. (iii) It is submitted that the management has submitted Exhibit P7 application for recognition of the school to the Principal Secretary on 22 February 2024. As per letter dated 27 February 2024, the District Educational Officer, Taliparamba informed that the Cresent English Medium School is operating without recognition and fitness certificate and recommended to take action under the Right to Education, Rule 14 (7) and (8). On the basis of the said recommendation, Respondent No. 3 had requested the Director of General Education to take action against the school vide letter dated 24 April 2024. (iv) It is submitted that as part of the investigation on the complaint filed by the Petitioner in the CMO Portal, it was found that Crescent English Medium School is operating without proper approval or fitness, and therefore, on the basis of the recommendation of Taliparamba District Education Officer vide letter dated 24 April 2024 to take action against the said school, as per letter No. DDEK NR/2546/2024-G5, Respondent No. 3 recommended to the Director of General Education, Kerala to take action against the school. The above information was conveyed by the Petitioner vide letter dated 30 April 2024. (v) As per letter dated 15 July 2024 of the Director of General Education, seeking an urgent report whether Thayineri Crescent English Medium School is still functioning from 3 June 2024, the District Education Officer, Taliparamba had submitted a letter stating that the school is still functioning as on 3 June 2024. (v) As per letter dated 15 July 2024 of the Director of General Education, seeking an urgent report whether Thayineri Crescent English Medium School is still functioning from 3 June 2024, the District Education Officer, Taliparamba had submitted a letter stating that the school is still functioning as on 3 June 2024. The President of the school society had submitted an application to the Director of General Education and the Principal Secretary for approval of the school that has been returned seeking to submit appropriate guidelines strictly following the guidelines issued in the Government order regarding approval of the unaided school. The above report has been forwarded to the Director of General Education vide letter No.DDEKNR/4546/2024-G5 from this office. (vi) It is submitted that based on the letter received from the Government dated 29 October 2024, the Director of General Education had sought information from the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur, as per letter dated 7 February 2025, and asked the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur, and the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur to submit the information like details of students studying in the school and the opinion of the concerned Local Self Government Institution as per letter dated 2 March 2025. Further, a notice has been given to the Manager of Thayineri Crescent English Medium School dated 2 March 2025 stating that if the KER standards are not met within two months as mentioned in the letter of Respondent No. 1, the school will not function from the next academic year onwards.” *** Having noted the position as above, the following order came to be passed on 1 April 2025: “Heard Mr. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Joggy representing Mr. M. Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5, Mr. Mudasser Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 and Mr. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State. 2. Perused the affidavits filed by the Deputy Director of Education and the Assistant Educational Officer wherein it is stated that Respondent No.6 is functioning since 1998, but no record regarding its recognition and approval exist. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No.6 is unauthorisedly running the school seems to have been accepted by the official Respondents. 3. It is pointed out that currently there are 235 students studying in the school in KG and 1 to 4 standards. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No.6 is unauthorisedly running the school seems to have been accepted by the official Respondents. 3. It is pointed out that currently there are 235 students studying in the school in KG and 1 to 4 standards. It is also stated that several students have passed out from the school from 1998 onwards. It is a case where senior officers in the Education Department will have to look into as to how this school was permitted to run since 1998 and now what could be the fate of the students who have already passed out and are currently studying in the school. It appears that Respondent No.6 has been collecting fees from the students. Therefore, permitting the functioning of such a school since 1998 reflects failure on the part of the Education Department, resulting in placing the career and future of the students at stake. 4. Therefore, we direct the Director of Education to call for an explanation from Respondent No.6 and also from the concerned Education Officer who is in charge of the area as to why such a state of affairs is permitted to continue and also to issue necessary directions in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 seeks time to file a counter. Explanation of Respondent No.6 be furnished to the Director of Education. 6. Post on 23 May 2025. In the meanwhile, we direct the Respondent Education authorities to issue restrain order against Respondent No.6 from admitting any new students and only those who are currently studying shall be permitted to continue, until further orders.” *** Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to today. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 6 moved an application before the Vacation Court for vacating the interim stay granted on 1 April 2025. The Vacation Court rejected the application for vacating the interim stay. 5. In view of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Education – Respondent No. 3, which highlights the illegalities in the functioning of the school run by Respondent No. 6, no direction can be issued permitting the enrollment of students in a school that is being run without proper authorisation. We had directed the Director of General Education to call for an explanation from Respondent No. 6 to hold an enquiry as to how such state of affairs is permitted to continue. We reiterate that direction. 6. We had directed the Director of General Education to call for an explanation from Respondent No. 6 to hold an enquiry as to how such state of affairs is permitted to continue. We reiterate that direction. 6. Therefore, having found the grievance put forth by the Petitioner to be correct, it is now incumbent upon the educational authorities to take appropriate remedial and deterrent steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, we direct the Director of General Education – Respondent No. 2 to take necessary steps/decision in respect of the functioning of concerned school run by Respondent No. 6 within a period of two months from today. If Respondent No. 6 has submitted any representation, the same will also have to be considered in accordance with law. However, we do not comment on the merits of this application. If the Director of General Education decides to afford an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 6, opportunity will also be extended to the Petitioner to participate in the said proceedings. The Director of General Education will examine the records, ascertain as to how an unauthorised school was permitted to function for several years and fix responsibility on the concerned officers of the Education Department, if a case is so made out. Necessary deterrent action will also be taken against Respondent No. 6 as per law. The Director of General Education will ensure that no new students are admitted to the said school post the interim order in the petitions unless all illegalities are rectified in accordance with law. The Director of General Education will also examine the aspect of collection of fees by Respondent No. 6 despite the school not being authorised, and take appropriate action as per law. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. 8. In case no satisfactory steps have been taken by the Director of General Education, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to seek revival of this PIL.